Now it appears that Microsoft has its own executive shakeup in the works. Steve Sinofsky, President of Microsoft's Windows and Windows Live division, left the company today. The move comes somewhat as a shock considering that Windows 8 just launched last month.

“It is impossible to count the blessings I have received over my years at Microsoft. I am humbled by the professionalism and generosity of everyone I have had the good fortune to work with at this awesome company,” said Sinofsky of his departure in an email to Microsoft employees.

I. First Forstall, Now Sinofsky

While the timing of Sinofsky's departure is a bit startling, the writing has been on the wall for some time with regards to his chemistry with other Microsoft employees. Sinofsky's inability to be a team player is cited as a major reason for his departure, and is reminiscent of Forstall's dismissal.

AllThingsD reported this afternoon that there was growing tension between Sinofsky and other top Microsoft executives. This news comes weeks after CNET ran a piece detailing Sinofsky's rise to power at Microsoft, and his rather combative style of leadership. CNET's Jay Greene had this to say about how former and current Microsoft execs viewed Sinofsky:

Most requested anonymity because they feared potential repercussions. They paint a picture of an executive who is incredibly smart and passionately driven to ship quality software on time. But some also say Sinofsky can create a toxic work environment that has chased talented employees away from a maturing company that's in desperate need of innovative thinking.

Sinofsky's leadership style and compartmentalization of tasks and "reporting lines" within the Windows division lead his approach to be labeled as "Soviet Central-Planning." In fact, the toxicity within Microsoft was humorously detailed in an organizational chart comic by Manu Cornet:

[Image Source: Manu Cornet]

II. Steve Ballmer heaps praise on Sinofsky, points to new leadership

Microsoft CEO Ballmer sent a memo to his staff regarding the departure, and praised Sinofsky's 20+ years of service:

As we enter this new era, and with the successful launch of Windows 8 and Surface behind us, Steven Sinofsky has decided to leave the company. Steven joined Microsoft in 1989 as a software development engineer and has contributed to the company in many ways from his work as a technical advisor to Bill Gates, to leading the evolution of the Microsoft Office business, to his direction and successful leadership of Windows and Windows Live as well as Surface. I am grateful for the work that Steven has delivered in his time at our company. [Full memo here]

Sinofsky will be replaced by Julie Larson-Green. Larson-Green has been with Microsoft since 1993 and has had a hand in program management, and UI design/research for Windows 7 and Windows 8.

Julie Larson-Green [Image Source: Microsoft]

“Leading Windows engineering is an incredible challenge and opportunity, and as I looked at the technical and business skills required to continue our Windows trajectory — great communication skills, a proven ability to work across product groups, strong design, deep technical expertise, and a history of anticipating and meeting customer needs — it was clear to me that Julie is the best possible person for this job, and I’m excited to have her in this role,” said Ballmer of Larson-Green.

quote: If MS really think they can become a serious OS player on mobile devices then they won't do Office for rival platforms.

Not true. You assume they expect to dominate the market in the same way they have always done. ie 95% market share and everyone else in the toilet. Again, its not an either/or situation where Microsoft's only options are complete failure or a total monopoly. They could have a successful, but only moderate platform that they own and then a piece of the pie on everyone else's platforms, too.

quote: Who was talking about PCs and the desktop market? That's yesterday. Tomorrow is mobile devices. That doesn't mean that Windows on PCs will go away but it will become commercially and logistically a minority player. Mobile devices are rapidly approaching Windows installed base and will pass them very soon and grow much bigger. Mobile devices are a vastly larger commercial space than the desktop. Apple's iPhone business is already bigger than the whole of Microsoft. So far Microsoft has nothing viable and of any consequence in play in these new markets. Android and iOS dominate the new markets. The choice Microsoft has to make is how much does it shape it's efforts to try to lever the remaining clout of Windows/Office in order to secure a foothold as an operating system purveyor in the new markets and how much does it abandon that ambition. If it abandoned that ambition (of being a vendor of a mobile OS) it could concentrate on exploiting these new markets, which will be inevitably dominated by OS made by other companies, as markets into which it can sell it's software.

See, this is the problem. Mobile devices won't replace PCs, unless they can achieve everything a PC can. So unless hybrid form factors kick off (and right now, Microsoft are the only ones who are offering a hybrid mobile/desktop platform), then mobile devices will simply be a different market segment. It doesn't matter if mobile device sales outpace PC sales. They aren't replacing PCs.

Here's an example that you'll like as its pro-Apple. It's like when people say that Apple are failing because their smartphone market share is declining. But we all know that is only because the market has grown. Apple's actual sales numbers have increased, even though the share has decreased. Other offerings on the market have not destroyed them, nor made iOS an irrelevance.

Similarly, increasing mobile sales are not taking away from PC sales in any great number. Again, we just need to look at Apple's massive recent success - they have sold 100 million iPads since 2010. Microsoft have still been making record sales of Windows 7, though - to the tune of 650 million copies since 2009.

That's not a company sinking into irrelevance.

If Windows ended up as a platform that was ONLY used in businesses, then it would not be anywhere near an irrelevance - and you cannot compare the amount of smartphones that are being sold to the amount of PCs being sold. Again, they are complimentary devices that belong to different segments.

quote: Possibly. There is a difference however. Nobody, so far, is forced to use an Apple product. During the long dark period when Windows/Office dominated the tech world I spent years in various work environments where I had to use Microsoft's shoddy, ugly and dysfunctional crap. I earned the right to actively dislike them and gloat at their failures. Apple haters on the other hand seem to get all frothed up about products they never use and will never be forced to use. It seems so puerile.

See, that's where you are making random, unfounded generalisations. For one, you don't know what some people may have been forced to use. Unless you know these "anti-Apple," folks personally, you don't actually know what their problem is with Apple. You are just making an assumption and attacking that. A strawman argument, they call that.

Also, as someone who has used MacOS in versions prior to OSX, I can attest that shoddy, dysfunctional software is not something that only Microsoft is guilty of.

I'd also finish off by saying that your use of past-tense (you "spent" years, you "had" to use), I would assume you no longer have to use Microsoft software. Consequently, you are now just as guilty of the reasons you are deriding other of. You are taking pleasure in slagging off a firm who's products you do not have to use.

quote: lso, as someone who has used MacOS in versions prior to OSX, I can attest that shoddy, dysfunctional software is not something that only Microsoft is guilty of.

Yep the Mac OS prior to MacOSX had lots of problems. At the time it was still better than Windows though. We used to call Windows 95 'Mac 89" :)

quote: See, that's where you are making random, unfounded generalisations. For one, you don't know what some people may have been forced to use. Unless you know these "anti-Apple," folks personally, you don't actually know what their problem is with Apple. You are just making an assumption and attacking that. A strawman argument, they call that.

OK - hands up who hates Apple because they forced to use Apple products?

quote: I'd also finish off by saying that your use of past-tense (you "spent" years, you "had" to use), I would assume you no longer have to use Microsoft software. Consequently, you are now just as guilty of the reasons you are deriding other of. You are taking pleasure in slagging off a firm who's products you do not have to use

But using it for several years was just soooooo bad that it scarred me for life :)

Microsoft poisoned the world of computing with their ghastly badly made crap for a generation and in the process disempowered countless millions of users who think that computer viruses, the BSOD and the loss of precious data is an unavoidable part of computing and that they were stupid for finding their computers hard to use. I am so glad their hegemony is over but I will forever relish their every pain. And boy have they got a lot of pain coming. The cliff looms.

quote: Yep the Mac OS prior to MacOSX had lots of problems. At the time it was still better than Windows though. We used to call Windows 95 'Mac 89" :)

No disagreeing that MacOS had features prior to Windows, but that wasn't the point. The "spinning beachball of death," is an example of what I mean. Apple had just as many software issues as Microsoft.

quote: OK - hands up who hates Apple because they forced to use Apple products?

You're still making assumptions. You assuming that its not the case does not make it fact.

quote: Microsoft poisoned the world of computing with their ghastly badly made crap for a generation and in the process disempowered countless millions of users who think that computer viruses, the BSOD and the loss of precious data is an unavoidable part of computing and that they were stupid for finding their computers hard to use. I am so glad their hegemony is over but I will forever relish their every pain. And boy have they got a lot of pain coming. The cliff looms.

Sorry, but you know that's bull. Even OSX is susceptible to malware. You know that, because you've argued against its importance due to the lack of infections in the wild. I know you are not so stupid that you don't realise that Windows suffers from a high infection rate because it has such a large market share. Had Apple held a similar position, they would be just as infected.

MacOS (even OSX) suffers from Kernal panics, which is all a BSOD is. It is not unique to Microsoft.

Data loss is also not something that is unique to Microsoft. Remember the issue about OSX wiping out user data due to a bug in the software a few years ago?

See, all you do is continue to prove your bias. With every post you make, you show up that you unfairly judge Microsoft due to a personal hatred of them and unjustly hail Apple as if they were perfect, even though they've made as many mistakes as Microsoft. They were just less successful with their products in the past.

You admit your bias and you admit it is possible you are unfair. You cannot know that those you accuse of being puerile are any different to you, but on the other side - yet you refuse to accept the possibility.

The fact is, you are everything you criticise in others. you don't even have an argument against it.